I pointed out that Helena's calculation would have only been for randomly selecting the facts that Koontz did. We'd have to calculate a separate probability for the events to actually have occurred themselves in the actual world. That's kind of what made me think of CSI here. We have the target, it appears to be cognitively meaningful, but the odds of the conjunction of both Koontz writing these things (which Helena did roughly at 1/1,000,000) times the probability of the actual events occurring according to those exact specifications is likely to be way, way, way less than 1/1,000,000.
EDIT: I'm being a little facetious. I really doubt if the probability for the actual events occurring meets the UPB. At best, its just a kind of analogy.
Okay you made me go on a little goosechase with dembski. Interesting. I am aware of guys like gerlertner and berlinski and meyer, but I hadnt heard of this dude.
I dont think you have to calculate the probability of the Koontz book being written and the covid epidemic occuring, just the probability that whatever series of events the witness has observed (the wuhan flu or 9/11) that there exists a movie or book of the “conspiracy” genre that was created in the last 50 years that shares striking similarities. Which might be
(Number of conspiracy books and films generated in that time frame) / (chance that a given book would encompass those details)
It might be considerably less than a million. It still feels weird though.
Its so annoying that all the msm outlets are tutt-tutting “now goy, don’t think about it”
As you know I am fairly convinced this was a frankensteined bug. I like the probabilities for that one. They are very invested in shutting that theory down. I feel upset that so many conservatives have brainwashed themselves that there is no covid, because they need to be upset about the fact that china just killed 1/3 of a million americans due to recklessness, (and the jews covered their asses) but I digress.
(post is archived)